Ayn Rand And The 2012 Presidential Campaign
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-08-20/ayn-rand-and-2012-presidential-campaign
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s selection of Paul Ryan as his running mate has brought new attention to the philosopher Ayn Rand. Paul Ryan says as a young man he was inspired by Ayn Rand's writing. In her novels “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead,” she described the virtues of private enterprise and the evils of government. Those ideas resonated with Ryan, and in a campaign video from 2009 he said, "Ayn Rand more than anyone else did a fantastic job of explaining the morality of capitalism, the morality of individualism, and this to me is what matters most." Ayn Rand was also an atheist, and Paul Ryan has distanced himself from Rand's religious views. But Ayn Rand remains an intriguing figure in American political thought. Senior fellow Onkar Ghate of the Ayn Rand Institute, Slate political reporter David Weigel and Stanford history professor Jennifer burns join guest host Tom Gjelten to discuss her influence.
Guests
Onkar Ghate
senior fellow and vice president of intellectual leadership at the Ayn Rand Institute.
Jennifer Burns
assistant professor of history at Stanford University and author of "Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right."
David Weigel
political reporter for Slate.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
I was forced to laugh when I saw this topic. To keep it fair can you do a show about the communist Frank Marshall Davis and the communist / terrorist Bill Ayers that were inspirational book writers in president Obama's life? These were people Obama actually associated with not just books that he read.
Who picked this topic, Kathleen?
Ayn Rand
"A government is the most dangerous threat to man’s rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims."
"Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage’s whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men."
"Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual)."
"People create their own questions because they are afraid to look straight. All you have to do is look straight and see the road, and when you see it, don’t sit looking at it – walk."
"The man who lets a leader prescribe his course is a wreck being towed to the scrap heap."
"There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil."
"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws"
"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force."
http://listverse.com/2007/12/13/top-25-ayn-rand-quotes/
Great Pic!!!
She looks just like Bill Buckley. Wonder if they are related.
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
In the early 1960s, I read a novel by Ayn Rand about an architect who designed a building and then destroyed the building when its owner modified it in a way of which the architect disapproved. People can judge the philosophy behind such a novel as they wish.
What struck me even more was that sexual relationships in the novel lacked any sort of intimacy. It was as though a sexual partner was just a useful tool to satisfy an urge and nothing more.
In many ways, I see those sexual relationships as a metaphor for the Ayn Rand economic philosophy. We need have no concern about our fellow humans. It is perfectly okay to get control of a company, load it with debt, extract lots of money for oneself, destroy pensions and benefits for the workers or fire lots of them, sell the company and then watch the company go bankrupt. Just look out for number one.
Rand was an atheist, so there is no hypocrisy in what she espoused. But now, the followers of Rand are combining her economic philosophy with religion. And even though the religion they claim to espouse includes a savior who, according to all the scripture I have read, requires his followers to take care of the poor and disadvantaged among us, all they want to do is to get all they can for themselves in tax cuts while gutting programs aimed at helping the least among us.
They are the epitome of a culture of greed couched in religion.
Ayn Rand and the Founding Fathers, can you find a difference?
Thomas Jefferson- A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take everything you have.
Alexander Hamilton- If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare… The powers of Congress would subvert the very foundation, the very nature of the limited government established by the people of America
James Madison- Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.
Thomas Jefferson- To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful & tyrannical.
John Adams- The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.
Thomas Jefferson- If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretense of taking care of them, they must become happy.
George Washington- Government is not reason, it is not eloquence—it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
Thomas Jefferson- The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale.
Benjamin Franklin- The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself.
Steve Gewirtz wrote: "all the scripture I have read, requires his followers to take care of the poor and disadvantaged among us"
Are you sure you want to go there? Why don't you enlighten us to what the bible says about out of wedlock births, the bedrock of the democrat party? Ignoring the fact that there are many examples throughout the bible about personal responsibility your point is less than honest. Better to leave Christianity alone in political discussions and let it do what it does best, serve as a personal guide for morality and virtue, and this comes from an atheist.
I would rather leave religion out of the campaign, but Republican candidates seem always to run on trying to force their religion on us. I am not a Christian, but Romney and Ryan claim to be Christians and are promoting their religious opposition to abortion and to equal rights for gays, and they want to dismantle the safety net. So I am pointing out that the religion they claim to profess calls for a safety net and for compassion for the least among us.
If you are upset by the number of out of wedlock births, you should support abortion rights as did Ayn Rand. And you should support provisions for birth control under the Affordable Care Act. You should support some help for indigent single parents since the child is an innocent party. You should differ with Romney and Ryan.
Keep in mind too that may out of wedlock births today are to committed couples who simply do not wish to marry. Since you are an atheist, you should appreciate their right not to take part in what many of them view as a religious institution to which they cannot relate.
Most of all, where I differ with you is that I believe that we as a society have a responsibility to each other. Jesus was well within the mainstream of his Jewish religion when he stated that. Ayn Rand and Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan deny that.
Let me add a couple of additional points.
Much of the infrastructure in this country is crumbling. Many of our bridges need to be replaced and roads need resurfacing. Here in Baltimore and in most cities, the water distribution system needs to be replaced. High speed rail would do wonders for our economy, as would improving our public education. But the Ayn Rand, Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan philosophy is that it is most important to reduce taxes on people who have inherited great wealth and who in the case of Romney have made huge amounts of money without regard to the effects of their methods on the rest of society.
So yes, we need individual responsibility. We need to make it possible for every American to get a good job helping to meet the huge needs of our society. But Romney and Ryan and their Republican friends in Congress have blocked every effort to meet those societal needs. They think that it is more important to defeat Obama than to improve the economy. And their Ayn Rand, Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan philosophy is that we need more tax cuts for the rich to make it still more impossible in the long run to fix our nation's economy. It is a culture of greed, and with the Republicans, it is couched in religion.
Steve Gewirtz wrote: "I would rather leave religion out of the campaign, but Republican candidates seem always to run on trying to force their religion on us"
It's democrats that bring religion into it when they attack religion, the "affordable care act" forces religious institutions into supplying birth control and abortion drugs contrary to the first amendment.
Steve Gewirtz wrote: "If you are upset by the number of out of wedlock births"
Never said anything about it don't put words in my mouth, I was merely pointing out your dishonest assessment of the issue with an example that should make you uncomfortable.
Steve Gewirtz wrote: " I believe that we as a society have a responsibility to each other."
That belief to the extent that you want to force it on others is not a Constitutional one, in fact it is to the contrary of the Constitution.
Steve Gewirtz wrote: 'But the Ayn Rand, Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan philosophy is that it is most important to reduce taxes on people who have inherited great wealth and who in the case of Romney have made huge amounts of money without regard to the effects of their methods on the rest of society."
Nonsense, the idea is that a free society creates an atmosphere for private enterprise to flourish, taxes on businesses are a restraint, of course some taxes are necessary but when they increase to a level of stifling economic growth we have what we have now. Very few jobs being created and an out of control government devouring 24% of the national GDP and borrowing 40 cents out of every dollar spent. Government exists at the expense of the private sector, out of control government is a cancer that will always kill it's host. A shrinking tax base is caused by government over taxing and over regulating and it leads to more infrastructure decay.
You should take a minute and read some of the quotes from the founding fathers above, they did everything they could to give us the tools to limit the size of government and to keep people like you in check.
With all due respect your comments are laced with baseless democrat party talking points to the point where serious discussion is almost impossible, but I had a stab at it anyway.
Who needs government when you can always have chaos?
And how do you borrow 40 cents out of every dollar spent when the dollar is only worth, at most, 7 cents????
And as far as the Thomas Jefferson quote is concerned, the following is from monticello.org:
The following statement, or variations thereof, is often attributed to Thomas Jefferson:
"A government big enough to give you everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have...."
We have never found such a statement in Jefferson's writings. As far as we know, this statement actually originates with Gerald R. Ford, who said, "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have," in an address to a joint session of Congress on August 12, 1974.[1]
This quotation is sometimes followed by, "The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases," which is most likely a misquotation of Jefferson's comment, "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground."
nohoplophobe wrote: "It's democrats that bring religion into it when they attack religion, the "affordable care act" forces religious institutions into supplying birth control and abortion drugs contrary to the first amendment."
The religious institutions required to pay for health insurance which includes reproductive services are those such as hospitals which have employees and treat patients who are not members of the religion in question.
Meanwhile, I have been forced to pay taxes which have been used for purposes which I have considered immoral such as the Vietnam war (which Ayn Rand opposed) and the two Iraq wars. And the same church which screams the loudest against the Affordable Care Act is one which gave a lot of support to the Vietnam war and to the use of draftees in that war. Where was its respect for conscience?
We unfortunately do not get to choose what our taxes are used for except in so far as we can influence that through the political process. Providing insurance for employees is no different from paying taxes.
If Romney and Ryan should get into the White House, our taxes may well be used for a war against Iran, while Romney will pay taxes at a much lower rate than I will. I do not want my taxes used for a war against Iran, but if there is such a war, I will have no choice about paying taxes to support that war.
Steve Gewirtz wrote: "The religious institutions required to pay for health insurance which includes reproductive services are those such as hospitals which have employees and treat patients who are not members of the religion in question"
Yes, but it is still a violation of the first amendment. If these employees can't accept that they should quit. This if left to stand will be decided by the supreme court.
Steve Gewirtz wrote:"If Romney and Ryan should get into the White House, our taxes may well be used for a war against Iran, while Romney will pay taxes at a much lower rate than I will."
What makes you think Obama wouldn't go into Iran, he increased troop levels in Afghanistan by tens of thousands with no apparent plan or positive outcome as of yet, haven't you noticed that there is almost zero coverage of what's going on over there? Do you think this would be the case if a republican was in office? Obama followed the Bush time line for getting out of Iraq, I see nothing to indicate that he will do anything different than what a republican would do. Many people view the Obama sanctions on Iran as an act of war, also the computer virus attack on Iran that was recently leaked from the white house in an apparent attempt to bolster foreign policy credentials is also an act of war. My perception is Obama is doing everything possible to hold back the hostilities until after the election and then it is probably a certainty that we will be involved in some sort of bombing campaign with Israel.
cont.
Romney pays taxes at a rate for capitol gains on investments, he paid full income tax on this money when it was earned income. You could argue he paid taxes twice on the same money. To encourage investment the tax system is set up so people will take risks by investing, if capitol gains on investments were taxed at the same rate as regular income the incentive to take a risk on investments would be far less. The purpose of this is to help business start ups and expansion, people do lose their shirts that's the reason for the tax code incentive.
"At the end of her life, suffering from lung cancer as a result of a two-pack-a-day nicotine addiction, Rand quietly renounced her philosophy of selfish self-reliance. According to the Oral History of Ayn Rand by Scott McConnell, founder of the media department at the Ayn Rand Institute, after the American capitalist medical system had wiped her out financially, she used her married name, Ann O’Connor, to apply for and receive Social Security and Medicare.
Yes, in the end, when Ayn Rand found herself in the unfortunate position of those she’d built a philosophy, not to mention a career, castigating — when it was she who was elderly, broke and ill — she availed herself of the crown jewels of American socialism."
Of course libertarians and conservatives will deny this....
http://www.gorevidalnow.com/2011/06/gore-vidal-on-ayn-rand-in-1961-she-h...
Well, when you hear Obama ACTIVELY AND VERBALLY PROCLAIMING Frank Davis and Bill Ayers as his role models in public, then I'm sure the show will showcase that.
As far as I'm concerned, the Republican nominee for VP's role model is fair game for discussion.
"The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand." - Paul Ryan
http://critiques.us/wiki/Ayn_Rand
"I reject her philosophy." - Paul Ryan
He rejects only the atheism? How ironic is that?
Obama - As an intellectual he usually does clarify and qualify in stride.
"Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto Me." was NOT a statement that Ms. Rand would agree with or would have said. Paul Ryan was the head of the Atlas Society, espouses and uses much of Rand's objectivism in his policies and budgetary formulations, requires his staff to read Rand's novels and essays, and has placed her picture prominently in his office until March 2012.
A follower of Jesus, especially a Roman Catholic, cannot use or espouse Rand's tenets without grave personal consequences. i.e. his immortal soul.
Why is Ryan trying to distance himself from Ayn Rand? Easy - her atheism is a no-no for his base. He has dumped Ayn Rand as his philosopher but not her merciless capitalism. His current philosopher of convenience is Thomas Aquinas, with whom he has no values in common
Must be "National Quotation Week". LOL
I loved Atlas Shrugged, but you have to put it in its historical context, and know a bit of where Rand came from. As a political philosophy it's kind of naive, but to treat it as poison is also kind of dumb.
aloysiusokon wrote: "Well, when you hear Obama ACTIVELY AND VERBALLY PROCLAIMING Frank Davis and Bill Ayers as his role models in public, then I'm sure the show will showcase that"
No this show will not, because it will make Obama look bad.
Frank Marshall Davis is mentioned 22 times in Obama's book "Dreams of my father"
http://blackquillandink.com/?p=12770
Statistically most Americans believe in god and the basics the bible teaches, most people reject whole sections of the bible that do not conform to their personal opinions. So here we have Paul Ryan who apparently enthusiastically embraces Ayn Rands small government philosophies which happen to look almost identical to what many of the founders of the country believed. In a desperate attempt to tar and feather Paul Ryan you are unwilling to give Paul Ryan the latitude you give yourself, freedom to pick and choose the philosophies that fit your needs. Lynch mob mentality!
Regardless of what the Founding Fathers wanted, or didn't want, where government is concerned, I'm fairly certain that they did not advocate NO government. And I believe there are those in this country; indeed in this world, who would eliminate ALL government, at least as we know and understand it. What would they replace it with?
Let's just say you probably wouldn't want to find out. Although it seems that the most logical step after no government would be chaos. Which might be why so many Americans are hanging on to those guns!
gary k wrote: "I'm fairly certain that they did not advocate NO government"
Who is advocating "no government" Paul Ryan, Ayn Rand, the founders?
Who are you talking about? No one involved in this stream of ideas is advocating "no government".
Thanks to "partisan politics" for the interesting Ayn Rand quotes and to Teece for the link to Vidal's excellent comments.
(money quote: "“This odd little woman is attempting to give a moral sanction to greed and self interest,” ")
VanFromGreensboro wrote: "greed and self interest"
Greed and self interest are the tools of advancement and self preservation. Without them we would not be sitting here so comfortably talking about it. The liberal philosophy of rejecting these basic truisms about human nature is the depraved and unnatural one.
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. " (h/t kfmonkey blog)
And what's the limit of how much "failing Ayn Rand" by getting (say) SocSec survivor benefits are we going to hear about Paul Ryan?
It must be nice to fantasize about how one can do everything themselves after sitting on a middle class made possible by 75 years of Social Security.
So, essentially you're advocating and embracing selfishness?
nohoplophobe wrote:
"With all due respect your comments are laced with baseless democrat party talking points to the point where serious discussion is almost impossible, but I had a stab at it anyway."
Get over yourself nohoplophobe. It is you who's using baseless talking points, not Steve. How many times does it have to be explained that lower taxes, less regulation, etc., has led to very little real economic growth and much greater wealth inequality in this country? Just look at the CBO figures of the past 30 years. Govt. efficiency should be improved, but there needs to be a balance.
The Market is not some benevolent quasi-diety that benefits everyone equally. It especially benefits those working in the financial industry and those that already have wealth, even at the expense of the poor and middle classes. And no founding father quote will change that fact.